6 ms·

This jumped out at me. "Abortion was originally intended to be performed in limited circumstances only, but now has become an inalienable right in any circumst

This jumped out at me. "Abortion was originally intended to be performed in limited circumstances only, but now has become an inalienable right in any circumstances whatever—into which, indeed, it is impermissible to inquire." followed coyly a paragraph later by "This, of course, would have the corollary that mass murder by doctors would in theory be permissible, or even obligatory."

manfredo 8y ago
Interesting, I interpreted this in a completely different manner. I read the part about abortion as urging people to be receptive to changing social norms since many things we consider to be just were considered unethical not so long ago. The latter part I saw as urging caution against accepting the mandates of authority and conformity, because there's no guarantee that the authority or concensus is right (like society's past views on abortion). Of course, I didn't really know the background of the platform, so who knows what the author really intended. Likely, this is an instance of writing phrased in such a way that the reader can project their own views into it.
- lliamander 8y ago
  Although a possible interpretation, I consider that unlikely. Immediately preceding the section on abortion we have the following comment: > There is nowadays a tendency for rights to spread, like ink through blotting paper. And then immediately following: > A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine argued that doctors should not be permitted to opt out of performing procedures that they considered unethical on the grounds of conscientious objection. Having read some of the author's other work, I'm fairly confident he is against abortion. However, think the broader point here is that increasingly doctors are being legally required to act in ways that run contrary to their own personal moral judgments. Regardless of how the young aspiring doctor feels about abortion (or anything else) It seems reasonable to prepare them for the possibility that they may have to choose between their conscience and the demands of their profession.
  - nradov 8y ago
    It's not just physicians. There have been issues with pharmacists refusing to dispense legally prescribed abortifacients. Should they be legally required to give patients certain drugs which conflict with their personal morals?
    - nkrisc 8y ago
      Perhaps not required but instead prohibited from abusing their role as a middleman in interfering with another's treatment.
      - nradov 8y ago
        Pharmacists aren't middlemen. They are licensed healthcare providers with a critical role in patient care that goes beyond just handing over pill bottles.
        evrydayhustling 8y ago
        That may describe the professionals training and intended role in the ecosystem, but it does not describe most patients' experience of the pharmacist.
        daodedickinson 8y ago
        What empirical studies do you know justify this claim?
        evrydayhustling 8y ago
        Um the experience of waiting in line at the drug store in four states in the last fifteen years? If you think most people have a more involved relationship with their pharmacist, I doubt I'm going to dissuade you.
        8y ago
lliamander 8y ago
I do not believe the author was trying to be coy, but you are eliding the paragraph which gives the correct context to the latter statement: > Moreover, though we pay lip service as a society to diversity and tolerance, we increasingly demand uniformity. A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine argued that doctors should not be permitted to opt out of performing procedures that they considered unethical on the grounds of conscientious objection. Once the profession, guided by ethicists, had decided as a whole that something was ethically permissible, no doctor should be allowed to go against the consensus. This, of course, would have the corollary that mass murder by doctors would in theory be permissible, or even obligatory. Never mind: It can’t happen here. But what was once unthinkable can become thinkable very quickly. The emphasized section above shows that his point is about overriding the moral judgement of individual doctors with legal fiat. In my mind, the risk is not just the law will someday mandate doctors participate in mass murder. Rather, that by eroding the judgement of doctors in the present, people who tend to think for themselves will self-select themselves out of the profession all together.
- aidanfindlater 8y ago
  The actual debate among physicians is about the ethics of denying patients care to which they have a right. There is no law or legal fiat that forces physicians to do things they object to. We are instead held up to a standard of care by our professional regulatory bodies, which define how a physician should act in order to be considered a member of the profession. Most of the rules are around ethical behaviour. With regards to conscientious objection, our professional bodies attempt to balance a patient's right to access timely, effective, and legal treatment against the physicians right to practice their personal ethics. How most bodies reach that balance is to say that physicians are required to provide timely referral to another provider for any service that they are morally objected to. For example, if you don't believe that abortion is right, you are not required to provide them (not by the regulating body and definitely not by the law), but you also can't prevent your patients from getting abortions--you need to refer them to someone who can. We can't force our personal ethics on our patients. The linked article appears to be arguing that doctors should be able to just say no, and thereby prevent someone from accessing the care that they want. Ultimately, the patient is the most important person in medicine, the doctor comes second. This is not the law, this is medical ethics.

manfredo 8y ago

Interesting, I interpreted this in a completely different manner. I read the part about abortion as urging people to be receptive to changing social norms since many things we consider to be just were considered unethical not so long ago. The latter part I saw as urging caution against accepting the mandates of authority and conformity, because there's no guarantee that the authority or concensus is right (like society's past views on abortion). Of course, I didn't really know the background of the platform, so who knows what the author really intended. Likely, this is an instance of writing phrased in such a way that the reader can project their own views into it.

lliamander 8y ago
Although a possible interpretation, I consider that unlikely. Immediately preceding the section on abortion we have the following comment: > There is nowadays a tendency for rights to spread, like ink through blotting paper. And then immediately following: > A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine argued that doctors should not be permitted to opt out of performing procedures that they considered unethical on the grounds of conscientious objection. Having read some of the author's other work, I'm fairly confident he is against abortion. However, think the broader point here is that increasingly doctors are being legally required to act in ways that run contrary to their own personal moral judgments. Regardless of how the young aspiring doctor feels about abortion (or anything else) It seems reasonable to prepare them for the possibility that they may have to choose between their conscience and the demands of their profession.
- nradov 8y ago
  It's not just physicians. There have been issues with pharmacists refusing to dispense legally prescribed abortifacients. Should they be legally required to give patients certain drugs which conflict with their personal morals?
  - nkrisc 8y ago
    Perhaps not required but instead prohibited from abusing their role as a middleman in interfering with another's treatment.
    - nradov 8y ago
      Pharmacists aren't middlemen. They are licensed healthcare providers with a critical role in patient care that goes beyond just handing over pill bottles.
      - evrydayhustling 8y ago
        That may describe the professionals training and intended role in the ecosystem, but it does not describe most patients' experience of the pharmacist.
        daodedickinson 8y ago
        What empirical studies do you know justify this claim?
        evrydayhustling 8y ago
        Um the experience of waiting in line at the drug store in four states in the last fifteen years? If you think most people have a more involved relationship with their pharmacist, I doubt I'm going to dissuade you.
        8y ago

lliamander 8y ago

I do not believe the author was trying to be coy, but you are eliding the paragraph which gives the correct context to the latter statement: > Moreover, though we pay lip service as a society to diversity and tolerance, we increasingly demand uniformity. A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine argued that doctors should not be permitted to opt out of performing procedures that they considered unethical on the grounds of conscientious objection. Once the profession, guided by ethicists, had decided as a whole that something was ethically permissible, no doctor should be allowed to go against the consensus. This, of course, would have the corollary that mass murder by doctors would in theory be permissible, or even obligatory. Never mind: It can’t happen here. But what was once unthinkable can become thinkable very quickly. The emphasized section above shows that his point is about overriding the moral judgement of individual doctors with legal fiat. In my mind, the risk is not just the law will someday mandate doctors participate in mass murder. Rather, that by eroding the judgement of doctors in the present, people who tend to think for themselves will self-select themselves out of the profession all together.

aidanfindlater 8y ago
The actual debate among physicians is about the ethics of denying patients care to which they have a right. There is no law or legal fiat that forces physicians to do things they object to. We are instead held up to a standard of care by our professional regulatory bodies, which define how a physician should act in order to be considered a member of the profession. Most of the rules are around ethical behaviour. With regards to conscientious objection, our professional bodies attempt to balance a patient's right to access timely, effective, and legal treatment against the physicians right to practice their personal ethics. How most bodies reach that balance is to say that physicians are required to provide timely referral to another provider for any service that they are morally objected to. For example, if you don't believe that abortion is right, you are not required to provide them (not by the regulating body and definitely not by the law), but you also can't prevent your patients from getting abortions--you need to refer them to someone who can. We can't force our personal ethics on our patients. The linked article appears to be arguing that doctors should be able to just say no, and thereby prevent someone from accessing the care that they want. Ultimately, the patient is the most important person in medicine, the doctor comes second. This is not the law, this is medical ethics.